The Agrarian Programme of Social-Democracy in the First Russian Revolution, 1905-1907

2. Pyotr Maslov Corrects Karl Marx’s Rough
       Notes[7]

Ialready had occasion In 1901, inZarya(published abroad), to refer to Maslov’s wrong conception of the
theory of rent in dealing with his articles in the magazineZhizn[1][8]

Thedebates prior to and in Stockholm, as I have already said, were
concentrated to an excessive degree on the political aspect of the
question. But after Stockholm, M. Olenov, in an article entitled “The
Theoretical Principles of the Municipalisation of the Land”
(Obrazovaniye, 1907, No. 1), examined Maslov’s book on the
agrarian question in Russia and particularly emphasised the incorrectness
of Maslov’seconomic theory, which repudiates absolute rent
altogether.

Maslovreplied to Olenov in an article inObrazovaniye, Nos. 2
and 3. He reproached his opponent for being “impudent”,
“bumptious”, “flippant”, etc. As a matter of fact,
in the sphere ofMarxist theory, it is Pyotr Maslov who is
impudent and stupidly bumptious, for it is difficult to imagine a greater
display of ignorance than the smug “criticism” of Marx by
Maslov, who persists in his old mistakes.

“Thecontradiction between the theory of absolute rent and the
   whole theory of distribution expounded in Volume III,” writes
   Mr. Maslov, “is so glaring that one can only account for it by the
   fact that Volume III is a posthumous publication containing also the
   rough notes of the author.” (The Agrarian Question, 3rd
   ed., p. 108, footnote.)

“Thecontradiction between the theory of absolute rent and the
   whole theory of distribution expounded in Volume III,” writes
   Mr. Maslov, “is so glaring that one can only account for it by the
   fact that Volume III is a posthumous publication containing also the
   rough notes of the author.” (The Agrarian Question, 3rd
   ed., p. 108, footnote.)

Onlya person who understands nothing about Marx’s theory of rent
could write a thing like that. But the patronising condescension with which
the incomparable Pyotr Maslov treats the author of those rough notes is
truly superb! This “Marxist” is too superior to think it
necessaryto familiarise himselfwith Marx before trying to teach
other people, to study at least theTheories of Surplus Value,
published in 1905, in which the theory of rent is made so plain that even
the Maslovs should be able to grasp it!

Hereis Maslov’s argument against Marx:

“Absoluterent is said to arise from the low composition of
   agricultural capital.... As the composition of capital affects neither the
   price of the product, nor the rate of profit., nor the distribution of
   surplus valueamongthe entrepreneurs in general, it cannot create
   any rent. If the composition of agricultural capital is lower than that of
   industrial capital, differential rent results from the surplus value
   obtained in agriculture; but that makes no difference as far as theformationof rent is concerned. Consequently, if the ‘composition’
   of capital changed, i.t would not affect rent in the least. The amount of
   rent is not in the least determined by the character of its origin, but
   solely by the above mentioned difference in the productivity of labour
   under different conditions” (op. cit., pp. 108.09. Maslov’s
   italics).

“Absoluterent is said to arise from the low composition of
   agricultural capital.... As the composition of capital affects neither the
   price of the product, nor the rate of profit., nor the distribution of
   surplus valueamongthe entrepreneurs in general, it cannot create
   any rent. If the composition of agricultural capital is lower than that of
   industrial capital, differential rent results from the surplus value
   obtained in agriculture; but that makes no difference as far as theformationof rent is concerned. Consequently, if the ‘composition’
   of capital changed, i.t would not affect rent in the least. The amount of
   rent is not in the least determined by the character of its origin, but
   solely by the above mentioned difference in the productivity of labour
   under different conditions” (op. cit., pp. 108.09. Maslov’s
   italics).

Itwould be interesting to know whether the bourgeois critics of
Marx” ever went to such lengths of frivolity in their
refutations. Our incomparable Maslov is completely muddled; and lie is
muddled even when heexpoundsMarx (incidentally, that is also a
habit of Mr. Bulgakov and all other bourgeois assailants of Marxism, who,
however, differ from Maslov in that they are more honest, since they do not
call themselves Marxists). It is not true to say that according to Marx
absolute rent results from the low composition of agricultural
capital. Absolute rent arises from the private ownership of land. This
private ownership creates a special monopoly having nothing to do with the
capitalist. mode of production, which can exist on communal as well as on
nationalised

				land.[2]The non-capitalist monopoly created by the private ownership of land
prevents the levelling of profits in those branches of productionwhich are sheltered by this monopoly. In order that “the composition
of capital shall not affect the rate of, profit” (there should be
added: the composition of an individual capital, or of the capital of an
individual branch of industry; here too Maslov expounds Marx in a muddled
way), in order that theaveragerate of profit may be formed, the
profits of all the separate enterprises and of all the separate spheres of
industry must belevelled. The levelling takes place through free
competition, through the free investment of capital in all branches of
production without distinction. Can that freedom exist where there is
non-capitalist monopoly? No, it cannot. The monopoly created by the private
ownership of landhindersthe free investment of capital, hinders
free competition, hinders the levelling of the disproportionately high
agricultural profit (arising from the low composition of agricultural
capital). Maslov’s objection reveals an utter lack of understanding,
which is. particularly obvious when, two pages further on, we come across a
reference to...brickmaking(p. 111); here, too, the technical
level is low, the organic composition of capital is below the average, as
in the case of agriculture, and yet there is no rent!

Therecannot be any rent in brickmaking, esteemed
“theoretician”, because absolute rent arises not from the low
composition of agricultural capital, but from the monopoly created by the
private ownership of land, which prevents competition from levelling the
profits of “low composition” capital. To repudiate absolute rent
means repudiating the economic significance of the private ownership of
land.

Maslov’ssecond argument against Marx is this:

“Rentfrom the ‘last’ investment of capital. Rodbertus’s
   rent and Marx’s absolute rent, will disappear because the tenant can
   always make the ‘last’ investment the ‘last but one’ if it produces
   anything besides the ordinary profit” (p. 112).

“Rentfrom the ‘last’ investment of capital. Rodbertus’s
   rent and Marx’s absolute rent, will disappear because the tenant can
   always make the ‘last’ investment the ‘last but one’ if it produces
   anything besides the ordinary profit” (p. 112).

PyotrMaslov muddles things, “impudently” muddles them.

Inthe first place, to put Rodbertus on a par with Marx on the question of rent
is to display crass ignorance. Rodbertus’s theory is based on the
assumption that the erroneous calculations of the Pomeranian landlord
(“not tocount” the raw product in agriculture!) are obligatory also for the
capitalist farmer. There is not a grain ofhistorismin
Rodbertus’s theory, not a grain of historical reality, for he takes
agriculture in general, regardless of time and place, agriculture in any
country and in any epoch. Marx takes a special historical period in which
capitalism has promoted technical development in industry more quickly than
in agriculture; Marx takescapitalistagriculture restricted bynon-capitalistprivate ownership of land.

Secondly,the reference to the tenant who “can always” make the
last investment of capital the last but one shows that our incomparable Pyotr
Maslov has failed to under stand, not only Marx’s absolute rent,but
his differential rent as well! That is incredible, but it is a fact. During
the term of his lease the tenant “can always” appropriate, andalways does appropriate,allrentifhe “makes the last investment the last but
one”, if—to put it more simply and (as we shall see in a
moment) more correctly—he invests fresh capital in the land. During
the term of the lease, private ownership of land ceases to exist for the
tenant:

by paying rent, he has “ransomed himself” from that monopoly
and it can no longer hinder

				 him.[3]That is why, when a fresh investment of capital in his land yields the
tenant additional profitand additional rent, it is the tenant, not the
landowner, who appropriates that rent. The landowner will begin to
appropriate that additional rent only after the tenant’s lease has
expired, when a new lease is drawn up. What mechanism will then transfer
the additional rent from the pocket of the tenant farmer to that of the
landowner? The mechanism of free competition, since the fact that the
tenant receives not only average profit but also super-profit (=rent) will
attract capital to this unusually profitable enterprise. Hence it is clear,
on the one hand, why, all other things being equal, a long lease is to the
advantage of the tenant and a short lease to the advantage of the
landlord. Hence it is clear, on the other hand, why, for example, after the
repeal of the Corn Laws, the Englishlandlords introduced a clause in their leases compelling the farmers to
spend not less than £12 (about 110 rubles) per acre on their farms,
instead of £8, as formerly. The landlords thus took into account the
progress in socially necessary agricultural technique which took place as a
result of the repeal of the Corn Laws.

Thequestion now arises: what form of additional rent does the tenant
appropriate during the term of his lease? Is it only absolute rent, or is it
also differential rent? It is both. For had Pyotr Maslov taken the trouble to
under stand Marx before “criticising the rough notes” so amusingly,
he would have known that differential rent is obtained riot only from different
plots of land, but also from different outlays of capitalon the same

			      plot.[4]

Thirdly(we apologise to the reader for wearying him with this long list of
blunders which Maslov commits in every sentence; but what else can we do if we
have to deal with such a “prolific”Konfusionsrat—a
“muddled counsellor”, as the Germans say?)—thirdly,
Maslov’s argument about the last and last but one investment is based on
the notorious “law of diminishing returns”. Like the bourgeois
economists, Maslov recognises that law (and, to make it look important, even
calls this stupid invention a fact). Like the bourgeois economists, Maslov
connects that law with the theory of rent, declaring with the audacity of one
who is utterly ignorant of theory, that “if it were not for the fact that
the productivity of the last outlays of capital diminishes, there would be no
such thing as ground rent” (p. 114).

Fora criticism of this vulgar bourgeois “law of diminishing
returns” we refer the reader to what I said in 1901 in opposition to
Mr.

			      Bulgakov.[5]Onthatquestion there isno essentialdifference between
Bulgakov and Maslov.

Tosupplement what I said in opposition to Bulgakov I will quote just one more
passage from the “rough notes” in Volume III, which reveals the
Maslov-Bulgakov criticism in all its splendour.

“Ratherthan tracing to their origin the real natural causes
leading to an exhaustion of the soil, which, incidentally, were unknown to
all economists writing on differential rent, owing to the level of
agricultural chemistry in their day, the shallow conception was seized upon
that any amount of capital cannot be invested in a limited area of land; as
theWestminster Review, for instance, argued against Richard Jones
that all of England cannot be fed through the cultivation of

Soho Square”....[9]

Thisobjection is the only argument that Maslov and all other advocates of the
“law of diminishing returns” use. If that law did not operate, if
succeeding outlays of capital could be as productive as preceding ones, there
would then be no need, they argue, to extend the area of cultivation; it would
be possible to obtain any quantity of agricultural produce from the smallest of
plots by the investment of fresh capital in the land, i. e., it would then be
possible for “all of England to be fed through the cultivation of Soho
Square”, or to “put the agriculture of the whole globe on one

			     dessiatin”,[6]etc. Consequently, Marx analyses themainargument in favour of
the “law” of diminishing returns. He goes on to say:

... “Ifthis be considered a special disadvantage of agriculture,
precisely the opposite is true. It is possible to in vest capital here
successively with fruitful results, because the soil itself serves as an
instrument of production, which is not the case with a factory, or holds
only to a limited extent, since it serves only as a foundation, as a place
and a space providing a basis of operations. It is true that, compared with
scattered handicrafts, large-scale industry may concentrate much production
in a small area. Nevertheless, a definite amount of space is always
required at any givenlevel of productivity, and the construction of tail buildings also has its
practical limitations. Beyond this any expansion of production also demands
an extension of land area. The fixed capital invested in machinery, etc.,
does not improve through use, but, on the contrary, wears out. New
inventions may indeed permit some improvement in this respect, but with any
given development in productive power, machines will always deteriorate. If
productivity is rapidly developed all of the old machinery must be re
placed by the more advantageous; in other words, it is lost. The soil,
however, if properly treated, improves all the time. The advantage of, the
soil, permitting successive investments of capital to bring gains without
loss of previous investments, implies the possibility of differences in
yield from, these successive investments of capital.” (Das
Kapital, III. Band, 2. Teil,

S. 314.)[10]

Maslovpreferred to repeat the threadbare fable of bourgeois economics about
the law of diminishing returns rather than ponder over Marx’s
criticism. And yet Maslov has the audacity, while distorting Marx, to claim
here, on these very questions, that he is expounding Marxism!

Thedegree to which Maslov mutilates the theory of rent from his purely
bourgeois point of view of the “natural law” of diminishing returns
can be seen from the following tirade, which he gives in italics: “If
successive outlays of capital on the same plot of land, leading to intensive
farming, were equally productive, the competition of new lands would
immediately disappear; for the cost of transport affects the price of grain in
addition to the cost of production” (page 107).

Thus,overseas competition can be explained only by means of the law of
diminishing returns! Exactly what the bourgeois economists say! But if Maslov
was unable to read or incapable of understanding Volume III, then at least he
should have familiarised himself with Kautsky’sThe Agrarian
Question, or with Parvus’s pamphlet on the agricultural crisis. Perhaps the
popular explanations given by those Marxists would have enabled Maslov to under
stand that capitalismraisesrent and increases the industrial
population. And the price of laud (= capitalised rent)keepsthat rent
at its inflated level. This applies also to differentialrent, so that we see a second time that Maslov failed to understand
anything Marx wrote even about the simplest form of rent.

Bourgeoiseconomics accounts for the “competition of new
lands” by the “law of diminishing returns”; for the
bourgeois, consciously or unconsciously, ignores the social-historical
aspect of the matter. Socialist economics (i. e., Marxism) accounts for
overseas competition by the fact that land for which no rent is paid
undercuts the excessively high grain prices established by capitalism in
the old European countries, which raised ground rent to an incredible
degree. The bourgeois economist fails to understand (or conceals from
himself and others) that the level of rent fixed by the private ownership
of land is anobstacleto progress in agriculture, and he
therefore throws the blame upon the “natural” obstacle, the
“fact” of diminishing returns.

[1]SeeThe Agrarian Question, Part 1, St. Petersburg, 1908,
article “The Agrarian Question and the ‘Critics of Marx’", footnote
to pp. 178-79. (See present edition, Vol. 5, p. 127.—Ed.)  —Lenin

[2]SeeTheories of Surplus Value, Vol. 11, Part 1, p. 208, where
Marx shows that the landowner is an absolutely superfluous figure in
capitalist production; that the purpose of the latter is “fully answered”
if the land belongs to the

state.[11]—Lenin

[3]HadMaslov read the “rough notes” in Volume III at all attentively he
could not but have noticed how frequently Marx deals with this.  —Lenin

[4]Marxcalls the differential rent obtained from the difference in
various plots Differential Rent I; and that obtained from the difference in
the productivity of additional outlays of capital on the same plot he calls
Differential Rent II. In the “rough notes” in Volume Ill, that
distinction is brought out in scrupulous detail (Part VI, Chapters 39-43),
and one must he a “critic of Marx” after the manner of the Bulgakovs
“not to notice”

it.[12]—Lenin

[5]Seepresent edition, Vol. 5, pp. 107-19.—Ed.

[6]See“The Agrarian Question and the ‘Critics of Marx’" on the law
of diminishing returns. Maslov utters the same nonsense: “The entrepreneur
will successively spend all [I] his capital, for example, on one dessiatin,
if the new outlays will produce the same profit” (p. 107), etc.  —Lenin

[7]Thissection was published in the newspaperProletary, No. 33,
July 23 (August 5), 1908.

[8]Zhizn(Life)—a monthly magazine, published in
St. Petersburg from 1897 to 1901; in 1902, it was published abroad. From
1899 onwards the magazine was the organ of the “legal
Marxists”.

[11]KarlMarx,Theorien über den Mehrwert, 2. Teil, Berlin,
Dietz Verlag, 1959, S. 36.

[12]KarlMarx,Capital, Vol. III, Moscow, 1959,
pp. 634-720.

[9]Ibid.,p. 761.

[10]Ibid.,pp. 761-62,